COMMONS' REASONS CONSIDERED. (Hansard, 16 August 1867)

§ LORD CRANWORTH

rose to move that their Lordships should insist on the alteration which, at his instigation, the House had made in the Bill—an alteration which, would have had the effect of assimilating the Irish to the English practice, and would have been in conformity with the opinions of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Campbell, and with the recommendations of the English and Irish Law Commission. His attention was called to the fact that no provision was made in the Bill for putting the chief Judges in Ireland in the same position as those in England with respect to the appointment of Officers in the Courts. He accordingly moved a clause vesting the appointment in the chief Judge of each Court. That clause passed 1603 their Lordships' House without objection, but the Commons rejected it; and one of the Reasons they assigned for the rejection was that the clause was an interference with an ancient prerogative of the Crown in Ireland, no allegation having been made by anyone that the said prerogative had been exercised improperly. A similar reason might be assigned for the preservation of any piece of patronage enjoyed by the Government. There were other Reasons — though it was only by a stretch of courtesy they could be called "Reasons" at all—assigned, but he thought that none of them were better founded than the one to which he had just alluded. At this period of the Session legislation practically depended on the Government, and it was useless for an independent Member of either House to attempt to carry anything which the Government opposed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

was anxious to express to the House how strongly he agreed in the view presented by his noble and learned Friend, and how deeply he regretted that the Commons had thought proper to reject the clause which seemed to him founded on reasonable and just grounds. The support of that clause was not confined to the lawyers in that House. It was supported, indeed, by his noble and learned Friends Lord Cairns, Lord Westbury, Lord Romilly; but it also received the support of those who were formerly connected with the government of Ireland—of the Earl of Clarendon and the Earl of Kimberley—as well as of the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Marquess of Clanricarde. He was the more anxious that this should be known, because he knew it would be said that the lawyers would be sure to support a clause that gave them patronage; and he wished it to be understood that this clause of his noble and learned Friend was supported by those deservedly great authorities as well as by the lawyers. He must express his surprise as well as regret, that the House of Commons had rejected this clause; and if it were not for the late period of the Session, he would follow the course adopted by his distinguished predecessor, the late Lord Lyndhurst, and endeavour to induce the House to insist on the clause. But he knew what the consequence of that would be at the present period of the Session, that it would be 1604 decisive of the fate of the Bill, and as it was one of great importance he did not think he ought to interfere to prevent it from passing. He was anxious to explain to their Lordships and to the public that this was the reason, and the only reason, why he could not agree to the Motion of his noble and learned Friend.

CONTENTS.
Lichfield, E.	Cranworth, L. [Teller.]
	Foley, L. [Teller.]
Sidmouth, V.	Redesdale, L.
	Vernon, L.
Colonsay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
	Bagot, L.
Marlborough, D.	Clinton, L.
Richmond, D.	Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]
Derby, E.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Devon, E.
	Skelmersdale, L.